linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] clk: at91: sama7d65: Add missing clk_hw to parent

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <df84e472-958a-4b68-8932-af7a0e476338@microchip.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 19:38:20 +0000
From: <Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com>
To: <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	<sboyd@...nel.org>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] clk: at91: sama7d65: Add missing clk_hw to
 parent_data

Hi Claudiu,

On 5/12/25 07:47, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Hi, Ryan,
> 
> On 06.05.2025 23:04, Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com wrote:
>> From: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com>
>>
>> The main_xtal clk_hw struct is not passed into parent_data.hw causing
>> the main_osc to not have a parent causing a corrupted clock tree.
>> Passing the main_xtal struct into the parent_data struct will
>> ensure the correct parent structure for main_osc and a correct clock
>> tree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> index a5d40df8b2f2..1e9d3c393883 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ static void __init sama7d65_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>       struct regmap *regmap;
>>       struct clk_hw *hw, *main_rc_hw, *main_osc_hw, *main_xtal_hw;
>>       struct clk_hw *td_slck_hw, *md_slck_hw;
>> -     static struct clk_parent_data parent_data;
>> +     static struct clk_parent_data parent_data = {0};
>>       struct clk_hw *parent_hws[10];
>>       bool bypass;
>>       int i, j;
>> @@ -1138,6 +1138,7 @@ static void __init sama7d65_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>
>>       parent_data.name = main_xtal_name;
>>       parent_data.fw_name = main_xtal_name;
>> +     parent_data.hw = main_xtal_hw;
> 
> Is this line still needed with the initialization of parent data above:

Yes it is still needed because the clk_hw struct still needs to be
passed into the parent_data struct. If not the wrong parent will be set.
> 
>         static struct clk_parent_data parent_data = {0};
> 
>>       main_osc_hw = at91_clk_register_main_osc(regmap, "main_osc", NULL,
>>                                                &parent_data, bypass);
>>       if (IS_ERR(main_osc_hw))
>